netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] net_sched: act: remove spinlock in fast path

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1435870750.11970.37.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Thu, 02 Jul 2015 22:59:10 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] net_sched: act: remove spinlock in fast
 path

On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 09:35 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> > +	if (gact->tcf_tm.lastuse != jiffies)
> > +		gact->tcf_tm.lastuse = jiffies;
> 
> I'm missing the point of the if block. Is that really good enough
> for the 32bit system case? I would have expected some wrapper to
> handle it here something like u64_stats_() maybe _u64_jiffies(). Maybe
> after a coffee I'll make sense of it.
> 

Point is to not dirty cache line for every packet ?

Doing the test means we attempt dirtying only ~HZ times per second,
which really matters to handle millions of packets per second.

My tests show a good enough performance, not sure we want a percpu thing
for this lastuse field.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html